Science is limited

[livingwordlabels]

Science, by definition, can only accept something which can be proven or tested in some way. It is therefore limited to making conclusions about physical things.
I'm not saying this limitation undermines science as a valid and extremely useful source of knowledge. However, what does undermine its reliability is when people use it to make assumptions and conclusions without acknowledging this limitation.

For example, when people try to use their scientific way of thinking to decide whether God exists or not. God is spiritual, not physical - a concept completely alien to science.

Also when people use only what they can observe to explain how mankind was created. This inevitably fails, as they have to limit life to something physical and we get the absurd idea of life evolving out of matter. The Bible offers us a more plausible explanation - that God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life. If we believe the Bible, we can see that humans are spiritual as well as physical.

My conclusion? If you want to understand God, how we were made, our purpose for living, our relationship with God and even our future, then you need something more than science.

[Divine Insight]

My conclusion? If you want to understand God, how we were made, our purpose for living, our relationship with God and even our future, then you need something more than science.

Scientists and philosophers alike agree that the natural sciences are based upon faith based assumptions. So it's laughable to see atheists criticizing the concept of faith when the very own scientific enterprise that they claim to love and cherish is also based on faith.

I agree that there are faith-based premises underlying the core of science. However, those premises are at least fairly reasonable. Even though they could indeed be false.

But how does that compare with the kind of faith required to believe in totally self-inconsistent and truly absurd superstitious rumors?

I mean, let's faith, the amount of faith require to believe in the Bible or the Qur'an is not all that much different from the amount of faith required to believe in Greek mythology.

If you can believe in the Bible, then you should easily be able to believe in Greek mythology. It's no more absurd. In fact, there is nothing you should not be able to place your faith in. If you can believe in the Bible, then you can believe anything no matter how utterly absurd or totally self-contradicting it might be.

Science isn't even close to requiring that kind of "faith". With science you only need to accept a few simple premises that don't seem too absurd if you don't dwell on them too intently.

Moreover, if science is wrong there is no reason to believe that some angry boogieman will condemn you to a place of eternal torture.

Why would anyone want to place their "faith" in the idea that some supernatural boogieman is out to get them if they fail to believe in him?

When we consider placing our faith in anything at all shouldn't we at least ask ourselves why would even want to believe it?

Believing in science is not a religion. Believing in a jealous boogieman is.

[WinePusher]

What aspect of science do you consider faith based?

The assumption that the universe behaves rationally, lawfully and uniformly AND that humans have the cognitive capacity to comprehend the universe's laws and rationality. Science essentially assumes that the scientific laws which its based upon are uniform throughout time and throughout the entire universe.

[WinePusher]

Scientists and philosophers alike agree that the natural sciences are based upon faith based assumptions. So it's laughable to see atheists criticizing the concept of faith when the very own scientific enterprise that they claim to love and cherish is also based on faith.

I agree that there are faith-based premises underlying the core of science. However, those premises are at least fairly reasonable. Even though they could indeed be false.

But how does that compare with the kind of faith required to believe in totally self-inconsistent and truly absurd superstitious rumors?

How do you determine that my Christian beliefs are inconsistent and truly absurd? There is no scientific law that discredits anything about the supernatural and there is nothing about science that disproves Christian theism. The only reason why you don't believe in something like the resurrection of Jesus is because your biases prevent you from believing in the possibilities of miracles.

A miracle is simply a suspension of the natural order. The universe generally behaves in a certain, predictable way (ie: dead people don't come back to life) and this is something both you and I accept. But, there is nothing that makes this assumption binding. There is no reason why we should believe this is true under all circumstances. Science has not ruled out the possibilities of miracles, therefore believing in miracles is not absurd as you suggested.

If you can believe in the Bible, then you should easily be able to believe in Greek mythology. It's no more absurd. In fact, there is nothing you should not be able to place your faith in. If you can believe in the Bible, then you can believe anything no matter how utterly absurd or totally self-contradicting it might be.

I believe in the parts of the Bible that are validated by evidence. I don't believe in the literal Genesis creation story or the worldwide flood story because these things are not validated by any evidence. The New Testament, on the otherhand, is. Even the resurrection of Jesus, which is undoubtedly an extraordinary claim, is one of the most well supported and evidenced historical claims ever. The only reason why nonbelievers rejects it is due to their bias against miracles. There are two aspects to the resurrection, the historical aspect and the physical aspect. Physically speaking, dead people do not come back to life therefore it's unlikely that the resurrection narrative is authentic. Historically speaking, the resurrection narrative is well supported and passes through most of the historical criterion. So, the resurrection may very well be physically and scientifically absurd but it is not historically absurd.

Besides, most of the content in the Bible has been corroborated by ancient historians UNLIKE most of the content within ancient Greek mythology.

[Divine Insight]

What aspect of science do you consider faith based?

The assumption that the universe behaves rationally, lawfully and uniformly AND that humans have the cognitive capacity to comprehend the universe's laws and rationality. Science essentially assumes that the scientific laws which its based upon are uniform throughout time and throughout the entire universe.

Actually it doesn't need to assume any of those things. All of those things are observably verifiable. The fact that the universe behaves rationally, lawfully and uniformly are precisely what makes science possible. However, ironically, if those things were not already true there wouldn't be any consistent uniform scientists here to observe those facts.

The fact that the laws are the same throughout time and the entire observable universe is also an observable fact. No faith required. No matter how far back in time we look, or how far away in space the laws remain consistent. If anything, this tells us that the universe is extremely simple actually.

Some scientists like Antony Garrett Lisi believe that this is observational evidence that a complex designer was simply not necessary. The designer would need to be far more complex than the simple laws that give rise to the universe.

Lisi's argument is actually quite compelling.

So this sort of thing isn't taken on "faith". It's simply an observed fact.

If there is any "faith" involved it's only faith that what we observe is actually what is actually going on.

But that is very reasonable faith.

But keep in mind, that science itself is NOT supporting secular atheism. It's only secular atheists who support secular atheism in the name of science.

Science itself doesn't say anything about why things are the way their are. Science simply tells us how things behave when we observe them. And the only faith required for that is faith in our very own senses and perceptions.

Besides, what's the alternative? Believing in Greek or Hebrew mythology?

I don't think these things are even in competition with each other.

The very idea that people are arguing "Science Versus Religion" is silly from the get go. There shouldn't be any conflict at all. The only reason there is conflict is become some truly absurd mythologies have become accepted as a picture of "God". This is where the war between science and religion comes into play.

It's really a war between "Mythology versus Science". And most people can't understand why anyone is even suggesting that mythology might have the upper hand, or even be anywhere near as credible as science?

Why should ancient superstitious myths hold any merit in comparison with scientific observation?

Nobody would argue for Greek myths.

Why they continue to argue for Hebrew myths is beyond me.

If there is a conflict between science and myth, then clearly the myths are what should be placed on the shelf marked, "fiction".

[no evidence no belief]

Science, by definition, can only accept something which can be proven or tested in some way. It is therefore limited to making conclusions about physical things.
I'm not saying this limitation undermines science as a valid and extremely useful source of knowledge. However, what does undermine its reliability is when people use it to make assumptions and conclusions without acknowledging this limitation.

For example, when people try to use their scientific way of thinking to decide whether God exists or not. God is spiritual, not physical - a concept completely alien to science.

For example, when people try to use their scientific way of thinking to decide whether Allah exists or not. Allah is spiritual, not physical - a concept completely alien to science

For example, when people try to use their scientific way of thinking to decide whether Zeus exists or not. Zeus is spiritual, not physical - a concept completely alien to science

For example, when people try to use their scientific way of thinking to decide whether the tooth fairy exists or not. The tooth fairy is spiritual, not physical - a concept completely alien to science

For example, when people try to use their scientific way of thinking to decide whether Santa exists or not. Santa is spiritual, not physical - a concept completely alien to science

Are you saying that we should believe that God, Allah, Zeus, the Tooth Fairy and Santa are real because there is no good evidence they are real?

You are correct that science is limited in that it cannot analyze and process FAIRY TALES. That doesn't mean that therefore fairy tales are real.

If the method by which you arrive to the conclusion that God is real is no different from the method by which a child comes to the conclusion that Santa is real, then there is no more validity to your belief in God than there is to a child's belief in Santa.

[Divine Insight]

How do you determine that my Christian beliefs are inconsistent and truly absurd?

Your Christian beliefs?

I don't even care about your Christian beliefs. I speak directly to what the ancient Hebrews have written.

There is no scientific law that discredits anything about the supernatural and there is nothing about science that disproves Christian theism. The only reason why you don't believe in something like the resurrection of Jesus is because your biases prevent you from believing in the possibilities of miracles.

No, this is not true at all. On the contrary, I could easily believe in miracles if they were sane. IMHO, there is nothing sane about a jealous God having humans crucify his son on a pole to pay for their sins. In fact, I could hardly make up a more absurd fable if I tried.

A miracle is simply a suspension of the natural order. The universe generally behaves in a certain, predictable way (ie: dead people don't come back to life) and this is something both you and I accept. But, there is nothing that makes this assumption binding. There is no reason why we should believe this is true under all circumstances. Science has not ruled out the possibilities of miracles, therefore believing in miracles is not absurd as you suggested.

For me it's not about believing in miracles. These stories are, IMHO, utterly absurd.

What do we see? A demigod born of a virgin who claims to be the Son of God.

Fine, I could buy into that if this demigod were truly brilliant. Be he wasn't. On the contrary he made many mistakes and did some truly stupid things. Moreover, I personally don't believe than any "all-wise" creator would send such an important message to humans as nothing more than convoluted gossip.

There is absolutely no sane reason why anyone should believe in these absurd stories, yet these texts claim that to merely disbelieve could be grounds for damnation.

I'm sorry Winepusher, to me that's a HUGE RED FLAG right there that this religion was created by men to try to control the gullible masses by instilling the fear that if they fail to believe in the religion some God will damn them.

For me, this is beyond absurdity. And we're already taking about New Testament stuff. This religion was absurd way back in the first few chapters of Genesis and the whole way through the entire rest of the Old Testament.

It's basically a collection of stories about how a God continually tries to solve the problem of sin using truly rude, crude and unwise methods, yet NEVER succeeds in ever solving a single solitary problem.

For me to believe in these stories would not just require that I believe in miracles, but I would also need to believe that our creator is dumber than rocks.

If you can believe in the Bible, then you should easily be able to believe in Greek mythology. It's no more absurd. In fact, there is nothing you should not be able to place your faith in. If you can believe in the Bible, then you can believe anything no matter how utterly absurd or totally self-contradicting it might be.

I believe in the parts of the Bible that are validated by evidence. I don't believe in the literal Genesis creation story or the worldwide flood story because these things are not validated by any evidence. The New Testament, on the otherhand, is.

Even the resurrection of Jesus, which is undoubtedly an extraordinary claim, is one of the most well supported and evidenced historical claims ever.

What? You've got to be kidding me. Where is there any evidence for the resurrection of Jesus? I've never seen any evidence for this in my entire life. And you certainly can't point to the biblical stories as "evidence". In fact, the biblical stories actually conflict with each other concerning what actually happened.

Also, has it ever occurred to you that if heaven is a spiritual place then Jesus would not have required a resurrected physical body to ascend to heaven?

I would have personally been far more impressed if Jesus would have simple rose as a ghost in a perfectly resurrected Ghostly body. The mere fact that these stories claim that he was physically resurrected with his wounds in tact actually make the story rather hilarious I think.

What if they would have beheaded him? Would he have then been resurrected carting his head around in his hands?

The only reason why nonbelievers rejects it is due to their bias against miracles.

No, that's not true at all in my case. I'll gladly give a God miraculous powers. But I expect to see them used intelligently, not like a Saturday Night Comedy skit.

There are two aspects to the resurrection, the historical aspect and the physical aspect. Physically speaking, dead people do not come back to life therefore it's unlikely that the resurrection narrative is authentic. Historically speaking, the resurrection narrative is well supported and passes through most of the historical criterion. So, the resurrection may very well be physically and scientifically absurd but it is not historically absurd.

Where is there any evidence of this resurrection outside of the Biblical gospels?

I do not share your view that the biblical gospels have any historical criteria at all.

Besides, most of the content in the Bible has been corroborated by ancient historians UNLIKE most of the content within ancient Greek mythology.

This isn't true.

For one thing there are historically corroborated events in Greek Mythology. The Greek God Poseidon was said to have sunk an entire navel fleet on it's way to war off the coast of some Greek island. A historical account of that event does indeed exist. Does this mean that Poseidon must then be real? Of course not. All it means is that the Greeks had attributed this disaster to their made up God.

It's the same way with the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible that can't be explained away as nothing more than the superstitious of the Hebrew Culture. Of course these authors were writing about actual historical events in many cases. That doesn't give credence to the superstitious claims they made about them.

~~~~~

In summary, I don't reject the Bible because I refuse to accept the possibility of miracles. I reject the Bible for the very simple reason that the God depicted in these fables is not the slightest bit intelligent. He NEVER actually solves a problem and all of his methods are extremely rude and crude.

Why should I believe that an almighty God who is capable of performing such miracles continually acts like an uneducated barroom drunkard?

It's not the miracles I reject. It's the utter stupidity required of the God.

Just look at the fall from grace story in Genesis chapter 3.

This God curses the serpent to crawl in its belly and eat dirt. Did that solve anything? Clearly not, sin continued to go rampant the whole way through the rest of the Bible.

This God curses Eve with greatly multiplied pain and sorrow in conception and childbirth. Did this solve anything? Clearly not.

Later when things get really out of control this God floods the entire planet having Noah build a boat to "save the animals".

No I realize you may not accept this story, but it's biblical so we're stuck with it.

What kind of a God would have allowed things to get this far out of control in the first place?

That would be my first question.

My second question is why not use an INTELLIGENT miracle?

To have a guy build a boat to save the animal kingdom whist God floods out sinners? Come on, that's truly crude and unfitting of an all-wise all-powerful creator.

This God could have just waved a magic wand and made all the sinners just disappear. Or even turn them all into pillars of salt like he did for Lot's wife.

I would have personally suggested to simply quit placing soul in their babies and within a single generation they'd all be dead. In fact, he should have done that before things got so far out of control in the first place.

So no Winepusher, it's not because I refuse to believe in miracles. But by golly if you're going to show me a miracle show me something intelligent. Don't show me these idiotic miracles and expect me to believe that an "all-wise" God used these crude methods.

And again, did the Flood WORK? Did it solve the problem of Sin?

Nope. Yet another failed intervention of God. He NEVER solves a problem. Have you ever noticed that?

Why should I believe that a supposedly all-wise God can NEVER solve a problem?

By the time we get to the New Testament and Jesus this looks like nothing more than an act of EXTREME DESPERATION on God's behalf.

And just look at how weird this is.

This God had commanded men "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

And now I'm being asked to believe that God is going to forgive us for our sins because we disobeyed him one more time by brutally killing his innocent Son?

And this is supposed to somehow make sense?

I'm sorry, but this has nothing at all to do with me refusing to believe in miracles. These stories simply aren't wise enough, IMHO, to be the actions or plans of a supposedly all-wise God.

I don't need science, or anything else to reject these stories. I reject them on the very simple grounds that IMHO, they are simply way too stupid to be representative of a supposedly all-wise Supreme Being.

So this is why I reject them as being totally without merit.

[WinePusher]

How do you determine that my Christian beliefs are inconsistent and truly absurd?

Your Christian beliefs?

I don't even care about your Christian beliefs. I speak directly to what the ancient Hebrews have written.

Sorry, I'm not a religious Jew. I'm a devout Catholic Christian. If you have a problem with what the ancient Hebrews have written then I suggest you go take it up with a Jewish Rabbi. I guess a better question would have been how do you determine religious/supernatural beliefs in general to be inconsistent and absurd?

There is no scientific law that discredits anything about the supernatural and there is nothing about science that disproves Christian theism. The only reason why you don't believe in something like the resurrection of Jesus is because your biases prevent you from believing in the possibilities of miracles.

No, this is not true at all. On the contrary, I could easily believe in miracles if they were sane. IMHO, there is nothing sane about a jealous God having humans crucify his son on a pole to pay for their sins. In fact, I could hardly make up a more absurd fable if I tried.

WHY is it absurd in your opinion. I'll answer that question for you. Nonbelievers consider miracles like the resurrection to be absurd because it falls outside of their subjective experiences. You've never seen dead people come back to life, therefore you think it's impossible. Well guess what, I already explained why this is a flawed position.

A miracle is simply a suspension of the natural order. The universe generally behaves in a certain, predictable way (ie: dead people don't come back to life) and this is something both you and I accept. But, there is nothing that makes this assumption binding. There is no reason why we should believe this is true under all circumstances. Science has not ruled out the possibilities of miracles, therefore believing in miracles is not absurd as you suggested.

For me it's not about believing in miracles. These stories are, IMHO, utterly absurd.

What do we see? A demigod born of a virgin who claims to be the Son of God.

Fine, I could buy into that if this demigod were truly brilliant. Be he wasn't. On the contrary he made many mistakes and did some truly stupid things. Moreover, I personally don't believe than any "all-wise" creator would send such an important message to humans as nothing more than convoluted gossip.

There is absolutely no sane reason why anyone should believe in these absurd stories, yet these texts claim that to merely disbelieve could be grounds for damnation.

Divine Insight, it seems as if you're rejecting this story simply because you think it's to tall of a tale. That's fine, and I respect your position but you haven't presented any argument or any thesis. All you've done is say how ridiculous the story is, and when I ask why you think they're ridiculous you avoid answering. Well, even though you won't admit it the reason boils down to the fact that nonbelievers reject the possibilities of miracles. All of these biblical stories regarding virgins births, dead people coming back to life etc, these are all miracles.

This thread is about the limits of science. There is nothing within the natural sciences that proves uniformitarianism. Science assumes that the physical laws of nature are binding and constant throughout time and space. But we cannot say with absolute certainty that is absolutely impossible for people to be born of virgins, or that people rise from the dead. Yes, obviously these things would not correspond with our experiences, but that doesn't rule them out from ever occurring.

I'm sorry Winepusher, to me that's a HUGE RED FLAG right there that this religion was created by men to try to control the gullible masses by instilling the fear that if they fail to believe in the religion some God will damn them.

Except or the fact that Christianity has been a source of liberation for many people and many nations. Go out and talk to any devout Christian, I guarantee you that they are not believing just because they want to avoid going to hell. The majority of historical thinkers have been believers as well, from philosophers like Boethius to scientists like Galileo. But according to you, they were just apart of the gullible masses.

I believe in the parts of the Bible that are validated by evidence. I don't believe in the literal Genesis creation story or the worldwide flood story because these things are not validated by any evidence. The New Testament, on the otherhand, is.

Even the resurrection of Jesus, which is undoubtedly an extraordinary claim, is one of the most well supported and evidenced historical claims ever.

What? You've got to be kidding me. Where is there any evidence for the resurrection of Jesus? I've never seen any evidence for this in my entire life. And you certainly can't point to the biblical stories as "evidence". In fact, the biblical stories actually conflict with each other concerning what actually happened.

Here's your historical evidence: the authenticity of the resurrection narratives in the Gospels, the empty tomb and the genuine claim of the disciples to have seen Jesus risen from the dead.

The questions historians are asking themselves is why do the resurrection narratives contain information that harm the credibility of the Gospel writer. The initial discovery of the tomb was by women and the tomb was provided by a Jew, these two facts harm the credibility of the author which raises the truth level of the text. Then you have the missing body (the empty tomb) that needs to be explained AND you have the disciples proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the dead. There evangelization was obviously extremely effective since Christianity spread like wildfire throughout the Roman Empire during the first and second century.

So like I said, the resurrection is historically validated. Any historical objections are moot. The only valid objections a nonbeliever has is to suggest that miracles are improbable/impossible.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 5 by instantc]

The use of "nothing" as a noun makes a sentence negative. In other words, "nothing exploded" should mean that there was no explosion.

To say "the Universe came from nothing" is, like above, a negative sentence. It has the exact same meaning as "the Universe didn't come from anything", which is a perfectly intelligible statement.

It's only an issue for those who make the grammatical error of treating the meaning of the word "nothing" the same way as you'd treat the meaning of "something".

[instantc]

[Replying to post 5 by instantc]

The use of "nothing" as a noun makes a sentence negative. In other words, "nothing exploded" should mean that there was no explosion.

To say "the Universe came from nothing" is, like above, a negative sentence. It has the exact same meaning as "the Universe didn't come from anything", which is a perfectly intelligible statement.

It's only an issue for those who make the grammatical error of treating the meaning of the word "nothing" the same way as you'd treat the meaning of "something".

I'll put it another way. What I mean is that if entity A has existed for a finite amount of time, and prior to entity A there was literally nothing, then that means that an empty set of properties turned into a non-empty set, right? That's seems logically impossible, since even a potential to become/produce something is in fact a property that requires an explanation, doesn't it?

[FarWanderer]

I'll put it another way. What I mean is that if entity A has existed for a finite amount of time, and prior to entity A there was literally nothing

Still gibberish. You're talking about a point in time in which time does not exist.